...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Theophile Obenga's "Negro-Egyptian" linguistic phylum
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] All you do is spout garbage. Instead of recognizing your inability to respond to my arguments, you accuse me, the very person who is putting a screeching halt to your barrage of non-sense, of not arguing right--the mark of a true looney toon whose only ammunition is being in a perpetual state of denial. You're wasting my time, I've got things to do. This is where it stands: --When it comes to reviewing the genetic evidence for the existence of a proto-Afrasan community, you can't use traces of post-split admixture as evidence against the existence of proto-Afrasan. Its like using >90% R-V88 y chromosomes in certain Chadic speakers as evidence that they didn't belong to the proto-Chadic community at some point. R-V88 got introduced to a subset of Chadic speakers AFTER they split up and diversified. In the exact same way, proto-Berbers got introduced to the majority of their maternal genepool (Mtdna U6, H U), when they split off and headed Westward (thats why these mtDNAs play a marginal role in Siwa Berbers). These lineages are NOT signature lineages that define Proto-Berbers--they define their predecessors in the Maghreb and Europeans. Only a doorknob such as yourself would rant on and on about ''genetic distance'' within the Afrasan community, and use these exotic ancestries as evidence that the genetic evidence is unsupportive of the notion that Afrasan speakers are unified amongst each other prior to contact with these exotic groups. --Tishkoff et al support the notion that Chadic speakers have a substratum that is CLEARLY Nilo-Saharan, and that this substratum was complemented with Cushitic ancestry, which would have happened with the introduction of proto-Chadic to these populations. Again, like I said you moron, Tishkoff et al's data doesn't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions. Its fully consistent with the linguistic trees formulated by pro Afrasan linguists. --Masalit, Fur et al would never have had E-M78 if they didn't have shared histories with Afrasan speakers. Berber speakers, on the other hand, don't need admixture with Afrasan speakers to be related to Afrasan speakers. Two siblings don't need to exchange genetic material to be related: they already are. In fact, the position of Berbers with Afrasan groups is so strong that they have their OWN E-M35, independent of Ethiopian and Sudanese E-M35. Read a book, will ya? --Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community? Thought so. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3